tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post4344173167966587376..comments2024-01-21T02:58:08.208-05:00Comments on On the Main Line: Shadal series #1 - How was the Tetragrammaton actually pronounced?Mississippi Fred MacDowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02734864605700159687noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-24868387434779610142013-07-10T18:15:48.040-04:002013-07-10T18:15:48.040-04:00And she conceived again, and bore a son: and she s...And she conceived again, and bore a son: and she said, "Now I will praise YA-hu-WAH: therefore she called his name YA-hu-DHAH." To me, the rhyme scheme is much more revealing. People say that we have lost the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, but as long as Hebrew has a rhyme shame, and as long as we know the name YA-hu-DHAH, we will always have a way to get to the truth of the matter.Lashon HaBrithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-10352208732813273592013-07-10T18:08:48.594-04:002013-07-10T18:08:48.594-04:00Given the fact that the nikudh were contrived to s...Given the fact that the nikudh were contrived to signal Adonai or Elohim, I would think that to get to the true pronunciation, one would need to get past the nikudh and look deeper to a rhyme scheme that would be revealing, such as Gen. 29:35 וַתַּהַר עֹוד וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתֹּאמֶר הַפַּעַם אֹודֶה אֶת־יְהוָה עַל־כֵּן קָרְאָה שְׁמֹו יְהוּדָה וַֽתַּעֲמֹד מִלֶּֽדֶת׃Lashon HaBrithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-68614848726878448532011-06-27T23:38:32.786-04:002011-06-27T23:38:32.786-04:00Possible. Interesting idea.Possible. Interesting idea.S.http://onthemainline.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-71692625529185428552011-06-27T22:58:04.058-04:002011-06-27T22:58:04.058-04:00"What is being posited then is really a chang..."What is being posited then is really a change from adonay to shema and then back again! If this can be explained, that would be nice."<br /><br />I don't think that's necessarily the case -- they could have pointed Yhvh with <i>shǝma</i> just to identify it as <i>ha-sheim</i> as we would say today, without intending it to be read that way.Steg (dos iz nit der šteg)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07694556690190505030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-61091634311395423972011-06-24T09:23:02.267-04:002011-06-24T09:23:02.267-04:00Doh! That's what happens when you aren't c...Doh! That's what happens when you aren't careful, and by you of course I mean "I."S.http://onthemainline.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-61094224218125778552011-06-24T07:08:48.746-04:002011-06-24T07:08:48.746-04:00adonai may be a translation of kurios
Some assume...adonai may be a translation of kurios<br /><br />Some assume, without any evidence, that they would have used the definite article, making it /hashema/<br /><br />this could not be -- h is only the definite article in hebrew! a at the end is already there in the aramaic<br /><br />The Novernian [sic] pointing is not like theirs<br /><br />not like OURS (quoting a babylonian source)zoharnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-12278942206536855902011-06-23T16:14:55.937-04:002011-06-23T16:14:55.937-04:00I see you forgot my theory about needing to pronou...I see you forgot my theory about needing to pronounce the ayin in שמע so that שמע ישראל wouldn't mean the (pseudozoharic) "God is Israel"<br /><br />It's OK.Gabbenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-91220411932535784132011-06-23T11:43:49.013-04:002011-06-23T11:43:49.013-04:00>It's also the first place the Shem appears...>It's also the first place the Shem appears, so it could have either been there, or picked arbitrarily, no?<br /><br />Not necessarily. Another appropriate spot would be in Exodus 3.S.http://onthemainline.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12600498.post-63516913476863937512011-06-23T10:30:56.158-04:002011-06-23T10:30:56.158-04:00Very impressive post.
But please explain:
"...Very impressive post.<br /><br />But please explain:<br /><br />"I also think his choice to place this comment on the verse he did - Gen. 2:4 - was very felicitous."<br /><br />It's also the first place the Shem appears, so it could have either been there, or picked arbitrarily, no?JXGnoreply@blogger.com